Germany: YouTube must improve monitoring of copyrighted content

After a video gets flagged for infringement, YouTube must prevent users from …

On Friday, the Hamburg State Court ruled that Google, YouTube’s corporate parent, will need to prevent users from re-posting flagged copyrighted material without express consent.

The court ruled that once a YouTube post has been flagged, the company must use its monitoring software to make sure that further copyright infringement does not occur, which would include live recording and alternate mixes. The ruling codifies YouTube's policies for Germany, and effectively puts them in line with existing practices in the United States.

The suit was filed two years ago by GEMA, the German royalty agency, and other music rights groups, who alleged that the video-sharing site had infringed on the copyright of seven particular pieces of music. GEMA, which represents the interests of over 64,000 composers, lyricists and music publishers in Germany alone, and over two million rights owners globally, is one of the largest such organizations in the world.

The case could have significant implications not only for Google, but also for other websites that publish music, videos, and other content online in Europe, and possibly around the world. The German decision comes just weeks after the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit partially reversed a lower court ruling that YouTube is exempt from copyright liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for the infringing activities of its users. That decision sent the case back to a lower court for a trial on the question of whether YouTube's founders were aware of specific infringing content and failed to delete them promptly.

YouTube’s main argument was that its technology, while an enabler of content-sharing, is not liable for infringement, nor is it responsible for keeping a close eye on everything that is uploaded to its servers. The German court partially agreed with YouTube, saying that the company doesn't need to conduct proactive searches, but does need to act in a timely manner once the rights holder took action.

Google said it "welcomed" the decision, as it created more legal certainty for all parties concerned.

"The court has confirmed that YouTube is a hosting platform and cannot be responsible for supervising every uploaded video," said Kay Oberbeck, a spokesperson for Google Germany, in an e-mail statement sent to Ars.

"This could clear the way [to make] sure that even in Germany, authors, composers, publishers, artists and labels finally benefit from their music on YouTube."

"Our primary goal was to get the principle of liability for users of YouTube videos confirmed by the court, and we have fully achieved this," he said. "YouTube has to take reasonable measures to protect our repertoire, and this obligation cannot be simply passed on to the rights owner."

However, Oberbeck also said that Google wants GEMA to negotiate a legal agreement as it has done so with many other rights holding groups in other countries.

"We invite GEMA to finally return to the negotiating table and in the interests of the entire music industry to find a solution,” he added. "The fact that YouTube is willing to do so, has been shown worldwide through agreements with music collecting societies and YouTube for more than 40 other countries."

Update: The post language has been clarified to note that Google has no duty to determine copyright infringement on its own; only after a video is flagged by a rightsholder must Google take action to prevent repeated uploads.

Dude, German Youtube has already been in its death throes. Google should just pull the plug on Youtube in Germany and tell them to DIAF. Let the citizens know that GEMA is fucking up their internet (though there are already a large amount of citizens that have known) and see what happens.

Yeah, but Youtube is heavily censored in Germany. I don't know all the details, but apparently there's something to do with Germany considering it a "public performance" so most music videos I link to my girlfriend are blocked.

Can Cyrus please tell us how to resolve the conflict between his headline and his article body? Does YouTube have to "prevent" the upload of copyrighted videos, or only "act in a timely manner once the rights holder took action". Either the headline or the body are poorly written.

Can Cyrus please tell us how to resolve the conflict between his headline and his article body? Does YouTube have to "prevent" the upload of copyrighted videos, or only "act in a timely manner once the rights holder took action". Either the headline or the body are poorly written.

According to the BBC they have to add an upload filter that prevents users from uploading infringing stuff lol.

Well and EVERYTHING ELSE... Facebook, twitter, anything where users can upload content means they can upload copyrighted stuff... Every site that has users upload content is in the same boat with this ruling.

I don't understand why these large Internet entities don't throw their weight around more. If Google/Youtube/Android just stopped being available/supported in Germany, how quickly do you think these people would cave? Google has one of the biggest hammers in the world, I wish they would use it.

By this logic, car dealers/makers should be held responsible when someone traffics stolen goods or drugs in their cars. Or even better, held responsible when someone does a drive by shooting.

Im not making sense am I? Hey look! My point.

Your analogy doesn't really jive. There's a difference between a company being held responsible your actions while using a product they have fully relinquished control of and a company being held responsible for your actions while on their premises (whether that premises happens to be virtual as in the case with YouTube).

and they wonder why the pirate party is doing well in germany... I think we are approaching a time when a political party could use a pledge to re-legislate copyright law as a method of picking up huge swathes of the under 40(?) vote.

Like vote for us we will turn the internet back to how it was regardless of political and legal pressure.

Here's why Google will shutdown YouTube in Germany now. If Google complies and devises an algorithm for detecting uploaded content of previously flagged and removed content, and then implements it, Google will be sued by every major copyright holder in the United States so they use the same system here in the states. "If you can do it for Germany then you can do it for us, too." They might be able to hold their ground under the DMCA, but it would be an uphill battle for Google most likely. Rather than go through all that effort, it's easier just to shutdown Germany. Sucks to be German and to be a fan of YouTube.

Hmmm...killing the messenger, are we? Or is this really the only way to stop folks from sharing music? In the old days nobody gave a $#!+ unless you tried to sell the copy. Maybe it should be illegal to sell music...PERIOD? Let's try that for a while.

The solution is quite simple. Just shut down all access to Google services in Germany until the courts there get a clue! I am really concerned about some of the dubious rulings coming out of that country lately. I am betting that cutting off service to the entire country might make some people over there wake up and realize that they need Google more than Google needs Germany!

"The court ruled that once a YouTube post has been flagged, the company must use its monitoring software to make sure that further copyright infringement does not occur, which would include live recording and alternate mixes." (Emphasis mine)

Yeah, that's gonna happen. Detect when a user has modified the video, so he can't upload that one either? Good luck with that.

Yeah, but Youtube is heavily censored in Germany. I don't know all the details, but apparently there's something to do with Germany considering it a "public performance" so most music videos I link to my girlfriend are blocked.

Official music videos from the records companies are usually geo-blocked by the records company that publishes it itself. It's a feature content distributors/uploaders have and choose themselves. That is basically the US performance rights that only cover their territory that limits that. Buying the rights for other territories like Germany might be complicated and it costs money. Even the band it self are not allowed to upload their own stuff on the internet without licensing.

The real difference is that EU countries tend to hold the website owner responsible for content on the site, even user generated whilst US has laws protecting the website owner from users contributed content plus the DMCA makes it easy hosting warez/infringing materials since it has a clear procedure where you don't have to remove anything that might be infringing but only requests with specific links from the copyright holders. Aka DMCA takedown notice. They have no economic liability when they follow the takedown notice and don't put up the materials themselves. In Sweden for example it is enough that they are aware of content that probably isn't licensed. They can be held liable. Basically website-owners in Sweden has to self censor their community driven websites, even if there is no official complaints. Luckily are courts hasn't tried to claim Googles services under our own laws though. Why Germany just does not let Google run under Californian or UK laws I don't know, it's basically where Google hides their legal responsibilities in most cases. Dividing the internet into territories is something content owners and copyright collectives has done. In the satellite TV world it's the transmitting countries laws that has to be fallowed not receive for example, same for radio, whoever listens to shortwave radio today. Getting the rights to stream something cross border on the internet is difficult though. You basically has to negotiate the rights in every state that can access the stuff.

As I recall, when You Tube first aired it wasn't meant for people to put up copyrighted materials. It was designed as platform to showcase personal videos not related to copyrighted material. It may be best for You Tube to just flush the system and start again, monitoring each user for their content.

As I recall, when You Tube first aired it wasn't meant for people to put up copyrighted materials. It was designed as platform to showcase personal videos not related to copyrighted material. It may be best for You Tube to just flush the system and start again, monitoring each user for their content.

You're kidding, right? The best thing to do would be for Google to push HARD for an exemption from the copyright laws period for user-uploaded content and say that Google doesn't have ANY responsibility to remove it.

Why? Because 99.9% of the people watching it PROBABLY ARE PAYING FOR CABLE TV OR SATELLITE TV!

It's past time for these companies to realize "Hey, if I want to monetize this stuff, I had better upload it myself and get in on the advertising revenue! Cents are better than nothing!"

As I recall, when You Tube first aired it wasn't meant for people to put up copyrighted materials. It was designed as platform to showcase personal videos not related to copyrighted material. It may be best for You Tube to just flush the system and start again, monitoring each user for their content.

The whole point of Youtube is it's ambiguity, so it's possible to mass consume pirated materials, TV-shows generally do the same in the UK and US and enjoy some protection from claiming fair use or parody. Youtube is more than that though and allow the users to get a hold of other materials, longer materials and a look into stuff and bits of shows, music, art etc they wouldn't be exposed to otherwise often from stolen source material mixing (of clips/music) that is not possible in the real world, beyond parody and original stuff. That was clear and the use of Youtube way before Google bought it. Even something like the meme of the kid lipsyncing to O-zones Dragostea din tei, Numa Numa, and anything else including copyrighted music would be illegal to do in a country like Sweden and is only possible when ignoring rights. Following the law it could even be taken down from the american Youtube with a DMCA Takedown notice, but most other countries would be held liable and be required to hunt down any traces of it even without any legal complaints or from the copyright-holder. Basically the chilling effect would be worse when website owners are forced to moderate content which Google actually doesn't thanks to laws like CDA and DMCA's Safe harbor clause. They protect the web site owners from both copyright infringement of users as well as defamation and other illegal activities express by the users. That is why they did freeze SOPA which would bring the rules the rest of the civilized world already has. It would also had opened up to abuse. Simply flagging stuff isn't enough for it to be taken down in the US and shouldn't be. Even if you do a webisode with licensed music in Sweden you wouldn't be allowed to stream it outside Sweden, also streaming and podcasting would require different royalties and they would be based on use/views regardless of commercial interest or not. That is where copyright collectives, law enforcement enforcing such rules which aren't codified has gotten us when we are not ignoring the question. In real life there actually isn't much support for the industry organizations collecting fees for copyright-use and so on and much of it started as fascist ideas not for todays corporate world or user sharing.

In short Youtube actually under US laws has the right to have their business of allowing the users to do anything, complying with DMCA takedown notices when they are real and accurate free from any responsibility of the users actions. They won't have that right being based in any other territory, including the EU, which is why it is simply censored in countries like Turkey (where it was banned previously), UAE, Turkmenistan and China. Theoretically they could host local versions in countries where it is banned, but in for example Chinese local companies tend to take over and that is not because Google didn't try to win the market (Hongkong search engine is still accessible) or because they exited it they simply were not the major players there and failed to hold a large market share. China even blocks and filters sites from Hong Kong for example. And keywords will be filtered even in sites not in the country. But filtering is only possible on unsecure (no end to end SSL) sites though. A Hongkong site might refer to the tiananmen square massacre but people in Mainland China will never see it. They don't miss much not being exposed to Falun gong propaganda though.

You are simply locked into systems were you actually loose control of your works today. A band has a set amount of demos they can distribute/give away and has to license their own original music and pay for their own songs to be able to use it on their own website and so on when they release music the old fashion way. They don't have full control of authorizing commercial use either as the collective systems means a license also has to be negotiated with the collecting societies even when they own both song and composition if the music has been published. Authors (books) have none of that kind of restrictions, my local library won't even pay out a compensation to the author if it's a foreign language book published in another country. Authors usually has hardcover prints and paperbacks in different publishing houses. 1 million ebooks from the American Kindlestore is available for me as a Swede as the author can actually authorize global distribution, no music is available from Amazon here and their Lovefilm streaming service has like 300 titles instead of Amazon VODs 100 000. UK version has right over 6000 titles. These kinds of restrictions is mainly local distributors trying to hold on to anti-free market tendencies, corporatism and so on. They are not needed for the creator to get paid.